The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[The Guard]

And who, at DC, has the right to pull ideas out of their own asses and sell them as truths?

By "truths", do you mean "literary truths"? Why, the various editors and writers who put the stuff in the comics, where it becomes canon unless retconned, of course.

"Oh, I write comics for DC, and I had one idea that the execs liked -- that means it's a fact about the character now."

Uh...yes. It is in fact DC Comics lore at that point until someone retcons it. You can hate it all you want (See my feelings on Leslie Thompkins' recent bastardization) but that doesn't make it not so.

What makes them different from us, the readers? The fact that they have a fancy DC name-tag attached to their shirt? I'm sorry, but no DC executive will sell a fact to me. I will determine my own facts about the character. If DC said that the Joker had three testicles, I'd go: "Thanks for that, but I'll choose not to believe it, thank you very much."

What makes them different? Are you serious? The fact that they contribute to the actual pantheon of recognized DC Comics continuities and canon.

Does that mean I dismiss fanfiction or other concepts? Hell no. But those ideas aren't canon. Not until they show up in DC Comics.

Based on the fact that, just because someone is a better writer than me and has some nice ideas about a character doesn't mean that their own ideas are more factual than my own.

"Factual" in what sense? As in they are actually DC Comics canon, or as in they are actually appropriate for the character?

The creators, however, have the final word. They created the character.

Then Batman being a killer should be ok in any film, because at one point, that's what Bob Kane made him.

In terms of The Joker, the character they created lives on, but it need not stop evolving simply because they are dead. That's the beauty of comics.

It's like George Lucas and Star Wars. If George Lucas died, and then some dude from DC bought Star Wars and had Emperor Palpatine come back to life, but with five hands so he could fire more lightning; I'd say bugger off. If George Lucas, the creator of the character, came up with this idea, then I would accept it.

George Lucas and STAR WARS and Bob Kane and Batman are completely different dynamics.

Regardless, someday I will regale you all with tales about how very average George Lucas's creation of "Star Wars" was until he and his creative team pulled ideas from almost every mythology that ever existed, and until his producers and other writers "guided" his creation in a new direction.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Also, kudos to Mr. Superhero, I think you see my point...

But to clarify - NO SINGLE INTERPRETATION OF A CHARACTER IS MORE 'CORRECT' THAN ANY OTHER, AND THAT INCLUDES THE AUTHOR'S. To use Dumbledore as an example, as his name has been mentioned, just because JK Rowling says that he is gay, doesn't mean that he is if you don't imagine him to be, and vice versa. BECAUSE HE IS NOT REAL, HE CAN BE HOWEVER YOU WANT HIM TO BE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO REAL MAN CALLED DUMBLEDORE WHO WE CAN CONCLUSIVELY PROVE IS GAY. A fictional character is open to infinite interpretation regardless of what the 'author' thinks. In fact, as Barthes wrote almost 50 years ago, 'the author is dead.'

 

[Sunburned Hand]

I could say my interpretation of Star Wars involves a Darth Vader who wears a suit because he's got a leather fetish. I suppose that's just as valid as, say, 20th Century Fox's interpretation?

Yes.

 

[The Guard]

And here comes "Truth is subjective".

Is one persons interpretation of STAR WARS elements as valid, in terms of it being a thought? Sure? But in terms of it being acceptable "STAR WARS" canon? Nope.

Just like the nonsense that happens on THE BATMAN is not Batman comic book canon. It's THE BATMAN canon.

I love the word "canon".

 

[Mr. Superhero]

They, the writers, have quite a bit more right to do what they want with the character than you, the reader. Because, by that logic, you could just as well say that the Joker has three testicles and two penises, and that would be just as valid.

The only difference being that I don't write for DC so my ideas aren't facts...

Here's a scenario for you. Tomorrow, I could write a Joker story for DC. I could send it off to them; they could love reading it; call me in for a job; and then staple those ideas presented in my story as facts. This is the message they would be giving off to fans: "This is a fact about the character and you have no choice whether to believe it or not."

But...how is MY imagination any more valid than, say, your average Joe from down the street? Oh, I work for DC so I produce FACTS! Hang on; isn't art supposed to be interpretive?

It's like the Expanded Universe of Star Wars. George Lucas is the owner of Star Wars so he completely disregards what all the EU authors have to say or write. The authors of Star Wars EU do not produce facts; they merely produce concepts that I can choose to ignore. It's the creator of the house who produces facts -- not the people who are growing plant pots outside, in the garden.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

They, the writers, have quite a bit more authority to do what they want with the character than you, the reader.

No, they have no more authority than anyone else. That's the point. The myth of the writer's authority has been totally demolished by the last half century of critical thought. The writer, the reader and the text are wholly equal.

 

[nickyg641]

The only difference being that I don't write for DC so my ideas aren't facts...

Here's a scenario for you. Tomorrow, I could write a Joker story for DC. I could send it off to them; they could love reading it; call me in for a job; and then staple those ideas presented in my story as facts. This is the message they would be giving off to fans: "This is a fact about the character and you have no choice whether to believe it or not."

But...how is MY imagination any more valid than, say, your average Joe from down the street? Oh, I work for DC so I produce FACTS! Hang on; isn't art supposed to be interpretive?

It's like the Expanded Universe of Star Wars. George Lucas is the owner of Star Wars so he completely disregards what all the EU authors have to say or write. The authors of Star Wars EU do not produce facts; they merely produce concepts that I can choose to ignore. It's the creator of the house who produces facts -- not the people who are growing plant pots outside, in the garden.

Yes. You've had something published by DC, thus inductig it into canon. Until that Joe Blo writes something and gets it published, your imagination is authoritive.

But, for now, while you haven't had anything published, you can't interpret what really isn't up of interpretation. It's like saying "This painting is blue, by my interpetation is that it's red."

 

[Sunburned Hand]

And here comes "Truth is subjective".

Is one persons interpretation of STAR WARS elements as valid, in terms of it being a thought? Sure? But in terms of it being acceptable "STAR WARS" canon? Nope.

Just like the nonsense that happens on THE BATMAN is not Batman comic book canon. It's THE BATMAN canon.

I love the word "canon".

Ultimately, a 'canon' can never truly exist, but I think the key word here is 'acceptable,' I think a better phrase would be 'more popular' though. Every interpretation is acceptable in that all are valid, however some are, for whatever reason, more popular than others. That popularity however is no signifier of worth or validity... just popularity. So, to bring my point back to the Joker, there is no definitive, correct or single interpretation of the character or his origin that is better than any other, however there are more popular interpretations.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

And here comes "Truth is subjective".

Is one persons interpretation of STAR WARS elements as valid, in terms of it being a thought? Sure? But in terms of it being acceptable "STAR WARS" canon? Nope.

Just like the nonsense that happens on THE BATMAN is not Batman comic book canon. It's THE BATMAN canon.

I love the word "canon".

Ultimately, a 'canon' can never truly exist, but I think the key word here is 'acceptable,' I think a better phrase would be 'more popular' though. Every interpretation is acceptable in that all are valid, however some are, for whatever reason, more popular than others. That popularity however is no signifier of worth or validity... just popularity. So, to bring my point back to the Joker, there is no definitive, correct or single interpretation of the character or his origin that is better than any other, however there are more popular interpretations.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

By "truths", do you mean "literary truths"? Why, the various editors and writers who put the stuff in the comics, where it becomes canon unless retconned, of course.

And yet, "art is mainly interpretive".

I take it you have never stumbled across the phrase?

I mean, what is canon? A hierarchy of truths? "Oh, you people read my comic-book, so now it is fact! Yippee!"

Sure, stories that are based on character persona are perfectly welcome; but if a writer of a story starts to pull FACTS -- as in, unknown truths -- out of their own asses, then are you saying that I do not have a choice in believing that "fact"? Because, as a reader, I feel that I am perfectly in my rights to disregard that truth, because it didn't come from the creator(s) of the character -- it merely came from someone who is in the exact same boat as me -- some who sheds equally valid concepts about a character as me...

Uh...yes. It is in fact DC Comics lore at that point until someone retcons it. You can hate it all you want (See my feelings on Leslie Thompkins' recent bastardization) but that doesn't make it not so.

This is all you people seem to say: "You can dislike it all you want, but it doesn't mean it's not a fact."

It just completely destroys the purpose of ART. Please, tell me: do the DC executives have a greater vision of the Joker than I? Wait, what if I, in the next ten years, become a writer for DC and start making my own facts up about the character? Will you, Guard, accept my vision, or continue to use your OWN imagination to sway your understanding of a character?

What makes them different? Are you serious? The fact that they contribute to the actual pantheon of recognized DC Comics continuities and canon.

Does that mean I dismiss fanfiction or other concepts? Hell no. But those ideas aren't canon. Not until they show up in DC Comics.

Right, yeah -- I almost forget: "they work for DC".

Damn, there's me thinking that I have ideas about the Joker that are just as good as some of the ideas that I have seen produced lately...

"Factual" in what sense? As in they are actually DC Comics canon, or as in they are actually appropriate for the character?

Facts, as in: YOU HAVE NO CHOICE IN BELIEVING THIS. IT IS A FACT. END OF DISCUSSION.

Sorry, but no one, other than the creator(s), can tell me to do that.

Then Batman being a killer should be ok in any film, because at one point, that's what Bob Kane made him.

In terms of The Joker, the character they created lives on, but it need not stop evolving simply because they are dead. That's the beauty of comics.

I can accept that character PERSONA evolves, as I have stated many times, but not genetic "facts" about a character that are promoted by various comic-book companies.

George Lucas and STAR WARS and Bob Kane and Batman are completely different dynamics.

No, they're not. Because when George Lucas dies; other writers will step in and try to promote their ideas as all-encompassing "facts".

However, based on what the author created, I will make up my own mind on what and what not to believe. Remember, "art is interpretive."

Regardless, someday I will regale you all with tales about how very average George Lucas's creation of "Star Wars" was until he and his creative team pulled ideas from almost every mythology that ever existed, and until his producers and other writers "guided" his creation in a new direction.

What a meaningless point. You aren't proving anything here -- you're basically saying that Star Wars was inspired by a collection of fables. Yes, we know. What's your point?

 

[Sunburned Hand]

It's like saying "This painting is blue, by my interpetation is that it's red."

Not quite, as the theories I've been outlining have different implications for a work of 'art' (i.e. painting/sculpture) than they do for say a text or film. Say you look at your painting, which for argument's sake we'll say is a square canvas all blue. You can say as you look at the painting "This painting is blue, but my interpetation is that it's red." However, you would obviously be wrong, as the painting is quite clearly and convincingly blue . This is because the painting, and the colour 'blue' are real, and that fact is staring you in the face as you look at it. The colours of paintings are not open to interpretation, because they are obvious, empirical fact - reality right in front of you at that single instant. However, later in a different instant when sitting on the bus home, you may think of the painting, and this time imagine it as all red. This now is an act of interpretation, and is valid and as correct as anything else, because the painting is no longer real, but imagined.

However, with a fictional text, be it a character, scenario, plot or whatever, your interpretation, whatever it may be is infinite and equally valid. Because unlike the empirical fact of the colours of a painting, the motives, thoughts, actions, dress and everything else concerning a character in a book or film, or indeed the plot of those texts are open to interpretation, because, to put it simply, they have a life beyond the printed page or cinema screen. So, in the case of Darth Vader, when watching Star Wars on the screen, you cannot deny, in the instant that you gaze at Darth Vader, that he is all in black. However, there is nothing stopping you, for example, imagining Darth Vader dressed in fluroscent pink, and this fictitious pink Darth Vader is as valid as the fictitious Darth Vader on the screen.

Is this frightening you?

 

[Saint]

Mr. Superhero, all your huffing and puffing will not change the cumulative nature of comic books--and thank God, because I'm not really interested in a murderous, gun-totting Batman. Bob Kane and Bill Finger did not create the definitive Batman--they created a version of Batman that, through the combined effort of hundreds of writers, became the definitive Batman. That is simply the nature of company-owned comics.

The same is true of the Joker. They created a throwaway villain--as all villains were throwaways back then--and I would be unsurprised if they never even considered his origin. A hundred other writers then came along and turned that throwaway villain into the definitive Joker.

Trying to marginalize the validity of these contributions is outright foolish. Without them, the majority of the qualities identified with these characters would be gone. I don't suppose you say "Bugger off" to Denny O'Neil and Frank Miller? No, really, I'm curious: Wolverine's creator, Len Wein, intended for Wolverine to be an actual Wolverine cub that was mutated into human form by the High Evolutionary. So, when you read "Origin," did you say "Bugger off! Wolverine isn't a stupid homo-superior, he's a highly evolved wolverine cub!" Wein also intended for Wolverine's claws to be a part of his gloves--not of his body. So I expect you to start bleating "Bugger off!" whenever you see a panel depicting Wolverine's claws as coming out of his hands.

So to do I expect a chorus of "Bugger off!" whenever you read Captain America, because Joe Simon never intended for Captain America to be frozen in WWII and revived in the modern day.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Yes. You've had something published by DC, thus inductig it into canon. Until that Joe Blo writes something and gets it published, your imagination is authoritive.

Right, so this Joe Blo may very well have some amazing ideas locked away, but he isn't allowed to apply those ideas to his own understanding of a character, because they haven't been f*****g published by some special DC Comics printer?

Throw me a bone. That Joe Bloe can apply his own ideas to his own understanding of a character, because that's what art is all about.

But, for now, while you haven't had anything published, you can't interpret what really isn't up of interpretation. It's like saying "This painting is blue, by my interpetation is that it's red."

No...that doesn't work, mate. If someone paints something blue, then it is blue. It isn't red, and you cannot interpret something as being red...if it is blue.

I'll try to correct that little "comparison" for you. If someone creates a whole new color, and then someone who is connected to some official color business re-paints the color fifty-years later, but I, also, do the same -- then how is their color more valid than my own? If I THINK that I have created the color exactly like the original, then who is going to change my mind? Who is going to force me NOT to believe that my color isn't the same as the original?

 

[Saint]

(See my feelings on Leslie Thompkins' recent bastardization) but that doesn't make it not so.

It hasn't been mentioned since Infinite Crisis, so let's all pray that somebody at DC smartened up and decided to stuff that in the retcon bag.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

It's the creator of the house who produces facts -- not the people who are growing plant pots outside, in the garden.

My point is though that creation is not fact - 'Creators,' be they authors, poets, directors or whomever have no more authority over anyone else than readers or viewers. All interpretations are valid.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Mr. Superhero, all your huffing and puffing will not change the cumulative nature of comic books--and thank God, because I'm not really interested in a murderous, gun-totting Batman. Bob Kane and Bill Finger did not create the definitive Batman--they created a version of Batman that, through the combined effort of hundreds of writers, became the definitive Batman. That is simply the nature of company-owned comics.

Yet their own origin of the character has still remained intact. Curious, isn't it?

The same is true of the Joker. They created a throwaway villain--as all villains were throwaways back then--and I would be unsurprised if they never even considered his origin. A hundred other writers then came along and turned that throwaway villain into the definitive Joker.

But they never gave the Joker an origin, or an explanation behind the white-skin. They purposefully left it ambiguous. It seems these DC executes have tried to destroy that mysterious aspect of the Joker, to which I disagree with -- so I will choose to ignore the chemical bath origin.

Just because more and more stories are shaped around the chemical bath doesn't mean that I have to read them. I can read a Joker story that is totally unrelated to the chemical bath origin, and through that, draw my own conclusions up about the character.

"Art is mainly interpretive"...

Trying to marginalize the validity of these contributions is outright foolish. Without them, the majority of the qualities identified with these characters would be gone. I don't suppose you say "Bugger off" to Denny O'Neil and Frank Miller? No, really, I'm curious: Wolverine's creator, Len Wein, intended for Wolverine to be an actual Wolverine cub that was mutated into human form by the High Evolutionary. So, when you read "Origin," did you say "Bugger off! Wolverine isn't a stupid homo-superior, he's a highly evolved wolverine cub!" Wein also intended for Wolverine's claws to be a part of his gloves--not of his body. So I expect you to start bleating "Bugger off!" whenever you see a panel depicting Wolverine's claws as coming out of his hands.

Not really, because I can understand the thinking behind those ideas. For a University student, such as yourself -- surely you can understand the difference between a reader understanding the thinking behind an idea and agreeing with it, and a reader more or less laughing at an idea, and therefore completely ignoring it, regardless of this "hierarchy of truths"...?

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Mr. Superhero, all your huffing and puffing will not change the cumulative nature of comic books--and thank God, because I'm not really interested in a murderous, gun-totting Batman. Bob Kane and Bill Finger did not create the definitive Batman--they created a version of Batman that, through the combined effort of hundreds of writers, became the definitive Batman. That is simply the nature of company-owned comics.

The same is true of the Joker. They created a throwaway villain--as all villains were throwaways back then--and I would be unsurprised if they never even considered his origin. A hundred other writers then came along and turned that throwaway villain into the definitive Joker.

Trying to marginalize the validity of these contributions is outright foolish. Without them, the majority of the qualities identified with these characters would be gone. I don't suppose you say "Bugger off" to Denny O'Neil and Frank Miller? No, really, I'm curious: Wolverine's creator, Len Wein, intended for Wolverine to be an actual Wolverine cub that was mutated into human form by the High Evolutionary. So, when you read "Origin," did you say "Bugger off! Wolverine isn't a stupid homo-superior, he's a highly evolved wolverine cub!" Wein also intended for Wolverine's claws to be a part of his gloves--not of his body. So I expect you to start bleating "Bugger off!" whenever you see a panel depicting Wolverine's claws as coming out of his hands.

So to do I expect a chorus of "Bugger off!" whenever you read Captain America, because Joe Simon never intended for Captain America to be frozen in WWII and revived in the modern day.

No, no, no, no... (beats head off desk) - there is NO DEFINITIVE BATMAN. BATMAN DOESN'T EXIST. Put it this way - there is a definitive George Bush, the living, breathing real person in the White House, about which we have definite facts that cannot be altered, but if he had never been born, and I wrote a story about a character called 'George Bush' that became president, that character could never be considered 'definitive' because every single human being that was aware of him could imagine an infinite variety of scenarios or characteristics about him that would render a 'definite' version impossible,as with all fictional characters.

Everyone, including the 'creators' are fully entitled to say 'bugger off' to any other interpretation, because all are subjective and all are equally valid.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

My point is though that creation is not fact - 'Creators,' be they authors, poets, directors or whomever have no more authority over anyone else. All interpretations are valid.

And if that works for you, then fair enough. It's just these people are trying to say that I don't have a choice in what to believe. I disagree with that.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

No, no, no, no... (beats head off desk) - there is NO DEFINITIVE BATMAN. BATMAN DOESN'T EXIST. Put it this way - there is a definitive George Bush, the living, breathing real person in the White House, about which we have definite facts that cannot be altered, but if he had never been born, and I wrote a story about a character called 'George Bush' that became president, that character could never be considered 'definitive' because every single human being that was aware of him could imagine an infinite variety of scenarios or characteristics about him that would render a 'definite' version impossible,as with all fictional characters.

Everyone, including the 'creators' are fully entitled to say 'bugger off' to any other interpretation, because all are subjective and all are equally valid.

Ha! This is so true.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

And if that works for you, then fair enough. It's just these people are trying to say that I don't have a choice in what to believe. I disagree with that.

Absolutely, I dig it... Go for it.

 

[Saint]

Yet their own origin of the character has still remained intact. Curious, isn't it?

Which has nothing to do with anything--whether the origin is the same or not, there are truths about the character that were changed from Kane's original intentions. You never specified that only the origin is protected by this mythical phantom of "creator intention," and you specifically cited examples (such as your hypothetical Emperor Palpatine scenario) that involved changes beyond the origin.

But they never gave the Joker an origin, or an explanation behind the white-skin. They purposefully left it ambiguous. It seems these DC executes have tried to destroy that mysterious aspect of the Joker, to which I disagree with -- so I will choose to ignore the chemical bath origin.

Just because more and more stories are shaped around the chemical bath doesn't mean that I have to read them. I can read a Joker story that is totally unrelated to the chemical bath origin, and through that, draw my own conclusions up about the character.

"Art is mainly interpretive"...

If you want to live in denial, that's your prerogative.

Not really, because I can understand the thinking behind those ideas. For a University student, such as yourself -- surely you can understand the difference between a reader understanding the thinking behind an idea and agreeing with it, and a reader more or less laughing at an idea, and therefore completely ignoring it, regardless of this "hierarchy of truths"...?

Oh, so you've been lying all this time, then: it's not the creator intention that you care about, it's just what you personally like. The intention of the original creator only matters when you don't like the new idea, and need to use this veil of "creator intention" to pretend your argument is more substantial than just "I DON'T LIKE IT!"

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Which has nothing to do with anything--whether the origin is the same or not, there are truths about the character that were changed from Kane's original intentions.

There are no final 'truths' about a FICTIONAL character. That's my (and I think perhaps, Mr. Superhero's) point.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Which has nothing to do with anything--whether the origin is the same or not, there are truths about the character that were changed from Kane's original intentions. You never specified that only the origin is protected by this mythical phantom of "creator intention," and you specifically cited examples (such as your hypothetical Emperor Palpatine scenario) that involved changes beyond the origin.

What truths, exactly? You mean concepts that are widely accepted? My interpretation of a character can be influenced by the presentation of that character's persona, but my interpretation of a character can never be influenced by genetic ideas that are presented as "truths" by DC.

If I don't want my Joker to have an origin, then I can rightfully ignore the chemical bath origin, regardless of "DC CANON"...

If you want to live in denial, that's your prerogative.

Damn, and what does it say in your sig?

"When in doubt, realize that Saint is always right."

Based on what you just wrote, I find that hard to imagine...

Oh, so you've been lying all this time, then: it's not the creator intention that you care about, it's just what you personally like. The intention of the original creator only matters when you don't like the new idea, and need to use this veil of "creator intention" to pretend your argument is more substantial than just "I DON'T LIKE IT!"

Oh, for the life of me...

My understanding of, say, Batman's persona can be influenced. And through that influence, through my understanding of that aspect of the character, more writers will utilize it. That's how characters are evolved. They aren't evolved around "truths"; they are evolved around what WE, AS READERS, feel is "within the character's persona".

Producing "genetic facts" about a character is something else entirely...

 

[Boom]

Damn, and what does it say in your sig?

"When in doubt, realize that Saint is always right."

Based on what you just wrote, I find that hard to imagine...

Please note that I wrote that, and I imagine Saint sig'ed it because he found it humorous.

 

[Matchbox]

Please note that I wrote that, and I imagine Saint sig'ed it because he found it humorous.

Either that or because he's an egomaniac.
I kid, I kid. t: